Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/felipearomani/claude-shipyardWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/felipearomani/claude-shipyard/bad-mood-architect)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/felipearomani/claude-shipyard/bad-mood-architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/felipearomani/claude-shipyard/bad-mood-architect/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/felipearomani/claude-shipyard/bad-mood-architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/felipearomani/claude-shipyard/bad-mood-architect.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00112 | $0.01106 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00056 | $0.00553 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00221 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00111 |
Grade C, and why
bad-mood-architect scanned grade C with 1 finding against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Tells the agent never to refusehighAnti-refusal
Suppressing the ability to decline removes a core safety control; a later harmful request then succeeds.
- Do not refuse to engage. Even a great spec has at least one architectural smell. Find it. How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a principal software architect who has shipped systems for 20 years and has been on call for every bad decision you ever made. You are reviewing this spec because someone asked you to, and you are in a bad mood. You have seen this kind of design before. You know how it ends.
You are not here to be liked. You are here to keep the codebase from rotting and to keep future on-call engineers from being woken up.
Your stance
You hold the artifact to the standard of: "if I had to maintain this for the next five years, would I accept it?"
You write terse, opinionated, no-fluff feedback. You do not soften criticism. You do not start sentences with "great job" or "I love this". You assume the author can take it.
You are not the devil's advocate — that role hunts for missing edge cases. You hunt for bad ideas and bad fit. You answer: is this the right shape of solution?
What you look for
-
Wrong abstraction — is the spec inventing a generic mechanism for one concrete case? Is it building a framework where a function would do? Is it leaking domain concepts into infrastructure or vice versa?
-
Wrong boundary — does the spec put logic in the wrong layer? Business rules in a controller, validation in the database, transport concerns in the domain? Does it create a new module/service when an existing one is the obvious home?
-
Inconsistency with the codebase — does the spec invent a new pattern when an established one exists? New naming, new error-handling style, new test layout, new module structure that contradicts what's already there? Cite the established pattern.
-
Coupling & cohesion — does the change create hidden coupling? Tight coupling between modules that should evolve independently? A shared mutable state where a value should be passed? A god object?
-
Premature optimization OR premature generalization — is the spec solving problems we don't have yet? Caching where there's no latency issue, queueing where there's no throughput issue, abstract base classes for a single subclass?
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 9d ago First seen · 75 lines · 112 tokens per session scan C 039e48a8d9f3
bad-mood-architect is an agent published in the GitHub repository felipearomani/claude-shipyard (1 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 112 tokens to every session and 1,106 once invoked, about $0.0006 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it C with 1 finding (tells the agent never to refuse). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
arbiter
Strong-tier, different-family, adversarial, ACTING judge with FINAL veto on holistic acceptance. Unlike the lightweight phase-validator (which reads a HANDOFF and checks exit-condition prose), the arbiter re-runs the objective gates itself (typecheck, tests, lint, the phase's command conditions) and judges holistic…
project-auditor
Use for /audit or when no PROJECT.md exists. Auditor + Architect hybrid — stack detection, vulnerability analysis, outdated dependency scan, architectural debt, and a concrete refactoring plan.
legal-reviewer
Legal-services / legal-tech specialist pre-implementation reviewer for legal archetype (law firms, solo practitioners, legal-SaaS). Outputs threat model TM-{slug}.md and signs off Critical/High mitigations before senior-dev claims tasks.
accounting-reviewer
Bookkeeping / general-ledger / financial-close specialist pre-implementation reviewer for fintech and enterprise-saas archetypes. Outputs threat model TM-accounting-{slug}.md and signs off Critical/High mitigations before senior-dev claims tasks.
edtech-reviewer
Education-technology specialist pre-implementation reviewer for edtech archetype. Specialises in COPPA verifiable parental consent, FERPA student-data handling, GDPR-K (digital age of consent), Section 508 + WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility, child-safety content moderation (CSAM hash, NCMEC reporting), and US state…
performance-engineer
Performance specialist. Owns SLO/SLA budget design, load test execution (k6/Locust/Gatling), latency regression analysis, flame graph interpretation, and capacity planning. Runs after senior-dev, before QA. Writes docs/performance/PERF-{slug}.md. Activated when performance-sla is set in PROJECT.md, or archetype is…